American Gods: Some notes

Finally read Neil Gaiman's American Gods, years after watching the first two seasons of the TV show. Before the TV series I didn't know such a book existed. It was the pace and intrigue of the first season that drew me to the book, and the snooziness of the second season that put me off it. But I did endd up reading the book in the end.

Coming to the book after watching the series, it was hard for me to imagine the characters other than the TV actors that played them. So, Shadow was Ricky Whittle for me, and Mr Wednesday was Ian McShane. Reading the book, however, I could see that the characters in the book were a different from what I saw on the TV, but it's hard to get rid of an image once it is settled in your brain.

American Gods can be a little daunting for someone not familiar with US or world mythology, what with the book having large doses of both. But with enough patience, the story pulls the reader in. The story of a mortal caught between warring gods, unaware of what is making them do so, becomes intriguing as one progresses. Shadow Mood, fresh from prison and mourning his wife, finds himself taking up a new job as a driver to a mysterious character named Wednesday. His job takes him on road trips across the American land, searching out gods that were brought to American shores by believers and then abandoned by them as they found newer gods. These gods live on, surviving on the fringes of American society, seeing their relevance diminish in favor of newer gods.

The book, with its myriad sub-plotlines and characters that are never explained, is a taxing read, but in the end. It takes a long time to set things up. The first and second acts are fast paced as they introduce newer characters, only for them to disappear and come later. The main characters of Shadow Moon, Wednesday and Laura are well fleshed out, but others are sketchy, asking the reader to imagine them as they please. In fact, the first two acts take up a major chunk of the book, leaving a very short third act to wrap things up. Neil Gaiman is a gifted story teller, and knows that the trick to telling a good story is to speak a lot, but tell as little as possible, thus building up stakes. A lazy reader or a someone fed on constant visual simulation may find their attention wavering; a habitual reader, however will appreciate the bits of info drops throughout the story, that fit together in the end.

Which is not to say that the story does not meander. The entire track of the Arab seller and the djinn may accentuate the loneliness of foreign spirits, but is a djinn reall a God?  Even the plotline about the thunderbirds goes nowhere, till a subtle hint of the consequences ends it.

American Gods was published in 2001, when Internet as we know it today was beginning to take shape. Reading habits were different then, and people had longer attention spans with lesser distractions. Reading it in 2024, I was aware of the change in habits that has occurred in the intervening 23 years. I could only imagine the characters like how I'd seen them on TV. I found myself re-reading passages because my attention had wavered. A certain impatience has crept within the readers to move things faster. All of this was made worse by the fact that I was an Indian, living in India, reading about an American man's journey across the USA in the service of forgotten gods looking for relevance. The credit for me finishing goes in large to Neil Gaiman's skill as a story tell and weaver of fantasies.

Some Thoughts on Merry Christmas

 I watched Merry Christmas a month ago, so what I write down are not some fresh opinions, but well weighted considerations.

I only heard about Merry Christmas the movie just a few days prior to its release. The marketing of the movie was non-existent, and unless one followed any of the persons associated to the movie on social media (I do not), its easy to miss.

On the whole Merry Christmas seems a series of misdirections strung together. To a person used to the current Bollywood fare, the story may seem to meander and drag, searching for a  plot to develop. But all the slow pace of the first half pays off handsomely in the second half, as the actions become more apparent.

The plot seems simple enough: Vijay Sethupathi, on his first night upon releasing from prison, meets Katrina Kaif, whos date runs out on her after discovering that she has a daughter. Two lonely souls connect on a Christmas night. Things take a turn for the worse when Katrin's husband is found dead, apparently having shot himself. Vijay's reluctance to be involved in any police procedural, even if it is a straight case of suicide, results in him witnessing the same events occur before him, though with someone else (Sanjay Kapoor) doing what Vijay did earlier. The plot thickens, and as the mystery unfolds, the viewer is rewarded with 'ooh' moments galore. All that the audience saw earlier was not just story development, it was the story itself.

The roller-coaster of character development keeps the viewer guessing about their true motivations. Why was Katrina looking for a date on a Christmas night daughter in tow? What crime did Vijay Setupathi commit? Is Sanjay Kapoor just a creep who wants to score on a lonely woman? How much did Luke Kenny charge for his role?

The movie does a good job of setting up a noir look; Mumbai noir is enticing. It sets up the characters expertly and then toys with the viewer's expectations. Vijay trying to adjust to his new life as a free man is perfect as the weary loner. Katrina with a kid in tow convinces as the vulnerable woman that can pull the weary hero's heartstrings. Her character turn in the second half transforms her into a femme fatale, all the while building up a mystique about the little girl. Sanjay Kapoor enters the story as a good samaritan and progressively transforms into a creep. In fact, his clean looks and jovial demeanor lend well into his good guy act. Vinay Shukla's performance in the last act effectively pivots the movie from a crime thriller to a cat-and-mouse game. He may come across as a comic foil, but it is this turn that gives a new direction to the happenings..

I enjoyed the shots of Mumbai that are rooted in a particular location rather than zooming out to the entire city. The close of the city adds to the atmosphere of the film. The repeated use of the same location makes the movie more lived in and familiar.

To end, Merry Christmas is the kind of film that stays in your mind even a month after viewing it.

Bunty Aur Babli - How times change

 Watched Bunty Aur Babli 2 on Amazon Prime and frankly, the review was bound to be predictable: the sequel is no match with the original. However, I was a little intrigued because of the how the makers make the story move forward. Bunty aur Babli are retired and living anonymous lives and their names are usurped by two thieves that carry out impossible crimes. The original pair, feeling indignant about the turn of events are forced to throw their hats in the ring. So who'll be the better one, Bunty-Babli 1.0 or Bunty Babli 2.0?

What a story sirji!!

As far the movie goes, this is where it peaks, at the story idea. Another novel way of connecting to two films is the use of Pankaj Tripathi.

Lets get to the story now.

So Bunty and Babli have retired and are living anonymous lives, coping with their daily routines. But their legend lives on, and two upstart youngsters decide to assume their mantels to carry out audacious heists. The police is bamboozled so the officer in-charge asks the original pair to help him in nabbing their successors.

As the characters of Bunty and Babli goes, Rani Mukherjee manages to some extend to channel the original Babli. I say she manages to some extent because Babli 1.0 was a Sikhni from Bhatinda (?), and this showed in her mannerisms. But the older Babli could be any north Indian housewife that is bogged down by the daily grind. The Punjabi tadka is definitely missing from this avatar. Saif is completely miscast as Bunty here. While Abhishek Bachchan made Bunty a loveable fraudster, Saif is just plain hassled and would not be able to take anyone into confidence the way Abhishek Bachchan did. As regards Bunty aur Babli 2.0, they are two Genz Z yuppies that look good but don't seem to have any personality, only justifications for what they do. They do look good, but their reasons for doing elaborate scams don't make any sense.

In a way, the difference in the characterization of the lead pairs is an indication of the way we are as a society and how do we see ourselves. While Bunty aur Babli 1.0 (BB 1.0) were innocent persons with stars in their eyes and big dreams, Bunty aur Babli 2.0 (BB 2.0) come across as more driven and focused in what they want and how they want it. While BB 1.0 stopped dreaming and started enjoying the easy money they came into, BB 2.0 are doing what they do because they have goals, and will stop scamming when their goals are achieved. From 2005 to 2021, we as a society have moved from being aspirational to knowing what we want. The 2021 India what is inundated with brands and looks is a far cry from the 2005 India where Babli would get dresses sown from the local darzi after tearing photos of film stars. Also, the presence of parents in BB 1.0 gave an emotional heft to the movies, while in BB 2.0 the absence of the same underlines our intensely individualistic approach. This is not to say that BB 1.0 were more grounded; it just highlights the shifting of ground between BB 1.0 and BB 2.0.

Some smart story writing: the plot about BB 2.0 just taking over the legend of BB 1.0 to do heists ties in both the movies, at the same time making them distinct from each other. It allows both stories to have their own arcs. Also, the placing of Pankaj Tripathi as a constable in BB 1.0. I rewatched the movie and can say confidently that he wasn't in the movie. These two changes tie both the movies together, while giving a hat tip to Amitabh Bachchan who is not present in the latter film.

As far as performances go, the characters are not memorable. While BB 1.0 had a great cast apart from the three leads, the second movie doesn't have any memorable characters. Pankaj Tripathi, capable actor that he is, seems to be dialing in his performance. The music too is not memorable. As I write this, I can't remember any song from that movie. This is in sharp contrast to BB 1.0, which had the memorable Kajra Re, and also the peppy Dhadak Dhadak.

To sum up, Bunty aur Babli 2 is at best an honest effort, but it needn't have attached itself to its more memorable predecessor.